<p>I will be the first to tell you, I am not a big fan of ANY of the hopefuls. I am a lifelong republican, however am so disgusted with Bush and the whole administration that I am ready to vote for anyone over him. HOWEVER I am floored, that Obama has made such tremendous headway, is being cherished as the newest media darling, and is being hailed as the next great thing. I personally don’t get it one bit. While there is no doubt that he is very intelligent and does represent that overused word, “change”, he is so new to this game that it’s downright frightening to me to think that he could be running our country in a few short months at a time when we are in such a precarious state with the anti America sentiment at a all time high. I am afraid it could spell disaster. With Hilary, though I am hardly a fan, I would vote for her over him mostly because she has 30+ years of hands on experience, has Bill behind her, and this is like getting 2 for the price of 1. Like him or not, this is an intelligent, wise and capable man who did do some wonderful things for our country. I didnt’ vote for him but was overall pleased with the job he did. This whole Obama thing really has me feeling nervous about the direction of our country. Talk is cheap and he seems to talk in very vague terms, but smoothly enough so that the average American who possibly is not as saavy as some actually believes it. It sounds good but come on, this guy who is virtually new to the American political scene now has it all worked out? Anyone else out there feeling uneasy with this "hopeful’ who is only serving his first Senate term?</p>
<p>I agree. He’s a fresh face who looks (and in some ways is) radically different from the candidates of years past. Considering how strongly displeased many Americans are with the current administration, I can see the appeal in voting for the “new kid on the block,” who’s young, Black, a good speaker, and pretty darn charismatic. He is what a lot of other candidates aren’t.</p>
<p>Still, his lack of experience alone raises serious questions about his ability to handle the position. Personally, I don’t like several of his views and wouldn’t vote for him. I like McCain myself.</p>
<p>No need to switch sides - Bush isn’t running again.</p>
<p>I don’t know much about the candidates, but I am gathering a concise picture bit by bit. Hopefully that picture shall be complete once I am able to vote! 
I am so excited that I will be able to vote.</p>
<p>I think people want not Obama himself, but what Obama represents. To me, Obama has connotations of being new, fresh, hopeful, and progressive. What I mean is that he represents the dawning of a new age, where our country does not really care about race anymore. I do agree that it is doubtful that someone with so little political experience could really take the position of leading a country, but I would prefer him over any other alternatives.</p>
<p>I think too many people are afraid of Hilary, haha. As for the republicans, I have never been a big fan of conservatives, and none of them strike my fancy, anyway.</p>
<p>Why does Obama get props for being African-American? His mother is your basic white-bread type, right? A few small changes in genetics and he’d be too light to pass as A-A. Would anyone be listening to him if he was just a Senator from Illinois?</p>
<p>EDITED: This wasn’t meant to be rhetorical, by the way. Similarly, would anyone be considering Clinton a leading candidate if she wasn’t female?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one has mentioned this in a very long time, but Bush really had no experience prior to being elected. Governor of Texas does not carry a lot of weight. The lieutenant governor has more power than the governor, and controls the work of the Texas Senate and controls the budgeting process as a leader of the Legislative Budget Board. The governor and lieutenant governor do not run on the same ticket (are elected separately), so if a Republican becomes governor, and a Democrat is elected lieutenant governor, it is essentially the Democrats who hold most power. If the governor is even out of state, the lieutenant governor assumes power of governor.</p>
<p>Many people assume that because Texas is such a large and populous state that it bodes well in experience for anyone seeking the presidency (or other national office). People need to get past this, and see that the person they elected in 2000 and 2004 has much less experience than Obama does. The only elected position Bush ever held was governor of Texas for five years. Exactly how does one get experience in foreign relations and foreign policy when one is the second in command in a state?</p>
<p>teriwitt, with all due respect…you are right with Bush’s experience and look where that landed us. In possibly the worst possible shape America has ever been in, on every front, fiscally,socially, globally, militarily and we have furthmore created a chaos in the middle east, that in my opinion, even our grandchildren will be having to contend with. Its a sad state of affairs, and his lack of experience but his family dynasty that many felt would carry him through successfully is in my estimate exactly what has landed us where we are today. This race has NOTHING to do with race, sex or even religious affiliation…it has only to do with capabilities in taking this country back to the high road again and getting us on track before we derail and can never bounce back to our place in the fast growing global economy. We are being passed up and quickly by China, and India, we need serious experience, and though Hilary has plenty of faults out of all the candidates, she is the only one (with wisidom and insight from Bill) who I think even has a shot at understanding this and getting us though it.</p>
<p>I will never vote for someone due to the color of their skin…my brother is an albino(sis and I are not) and my folks raised us to believe the only difference between him, us, african americans, asians, etc. is the genetic pigmentation. So I am someone who hates it when people label themselves this way,I wish the media would stop this already. IMO we are already a divided nation between political parties, do we need to splinter voters to black/women/caucasian, etc?</p>
<p>ctmomof3,</p>
<p>I will disagree with the worst shape of America…I place Carter in that illustrious position, pretty sure the hostages of Iran would give him that too. Look at our economy currently compared to Carter’s. Inflation was spiraling out of control, thus the fed tightened their rates to almost strangulation (mtg rates =18%) gold is at 876 as of yesterday, 30 years ago under Carter it was 800. Gas prices today with inflation is the exact same amount. Globally we were not respected, our response to Russia fine we’re not going to your OLympics…that showed the world not to mess with us.</p>
<p>As far as China and India, well they are the worst violatiors of the Kyoto treaty. We can win back the position of higher exports if we remove laws that don’t allow sweatshops, OSHA, FDA and emission control. I have a friend who went to India this summer for school (she is a teacher and received a grant) She had to bring a water purifier because of the water and she was in a hotel in New Delhi.</p>
<p>My vote is still McCain and I would love to see him give Bill Clinton Secretary of State, I think that would be an ideal position for Clinton, especially with his Israel/Palestine issues
I agree Obama does not have the experience and people need to stop and ask how will he make his decisions? Bush got slapped for chosing experienced people (Andrew Card, Dick Cheney, Rumsfield, Colin Power, Condy Rice) so will he get slammed for that and will people say he is the puppet and the vp is running the country?</p>
<p>As far as Hillary at least this time we will know we are getting a 2fer, unlike the last time, when she was running committees b/c she was his wife. I still have issues about them (Travelgate, Tysons, “it is”, Whitewater) but I could accept her faster than Obama</p>
<p>Well I do not totally agree though I would say Carter is certainly a close runner up if not neck in neck. Bush lied to get support for a war of aggression on a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. That war has degraded into a policing of the civil war that was completely predictable before we went in. Thousands of our bravest have died for nothing. Besides the fact that billions and billions of dollars have been spent with end in sight, that our grandkids and further generations are going to be stuck paying for.</p>
<p>With regard to India and China, it is practically indisputable that these are the two fastest growing global economies, and seeing that they make up about 40% of the world’s population, the capacity for growth is limitless. Besides the fact that these two long time rivals have in recent years started “making nice” mostly with regard to coming together in the interest of oil, should this trend continue…the impact on the U.S. could be catastrophic. Recently, they agreed to cooperate where possible in bidding for all third-country oil assets, which could save billions of dollars. They have also agreed to continue talks and exchange information when bidding for overseas assets. The main difference and the one thing that would and could keep them apart and on separate paths would be the politics of each nation which are vastly different. Alone or together, these powerhouses are a threat to our own security and place in the global economy. China dominates in manufacturing and Indian is dominating in the service sector. They are both now trying to grow in each others’ respective fields and have the capabilities to do so, bottom line, is that I know I am no expert but do follow what’s going on over there, I have a good friend who does a lot of manufacturing in China and get his perspective often…and I do think that we will need someone to run our country who has a great deal of experience on a global not national level. Someone who is keen and wise to what is going on and let’s face it, no experience in the world can possibly prepare anyone to tackle the middle east crisis…its so beyond grasping and taking hold of, that its overwhelming to think about. I just think the problems that loom ahead for our country will necessitate someone out of the four current potentials who has the vision and experience to tackle this…I don’t think any are perfect for the job but I know Obama cannot do it, I don’t have a ton of confidence in Huckabee or Romney and that leaves Clinton, who to me, is the best of the bunch, particularly since she has Bill by her side and like him or not, he did in fact do some positive things for our country and I would feel more comfortable having these two as a “tag team” run our country than any of the other potentials. We have an interesting few months ahead of us.</p>
<p>I think we should do it like the Olympics (as Romney keeps talking about…I won’t support him, he is too slick) 1st Place you get to be pres., 2nd place you get to be vp, this way both parties get their number 1…but we digress from the thread</p>
<p>I read last night on Drudge that Bryan Williams even said the media is failing b/c they like Obama “paraphrasing”. I am not a Hillary fan, but I think she has gotten a harder ride by the media than Obama.</p>
<p>To answer why we aren’t getting the Obama factor is we see through the rhetoric of “change” and are asking him to give factual support that he can give change. I will say that word frightens me…it reminds me of the old cliche, “becareful of what you wish for”, we might want change, but I want to at least have a track record that I can make an informed decision, I will not follow blindly just because I am told he is the leader of change…</p>
<p>Oh BTW did anyone see on the drudge the pic of a woman crying at a campaign rally for Barack…that type of voter frightens the you know what out of me…and I am not talking about Hillary, there is a pic of a woman with tears flowing…:eek:</p>
<p>Obama is an “inspirational” leader - not a policy wonk, not a seasoned legislator. Inspirational leaders kind of scare me. His policies, such as they are, seem fairly innocuous. Hillary honestly frightens me a LOT because of her extremely doctrinaire ideas about social and economic intervention. Edwards is the most appalling, in my view. So on the democratic side I’m really at a loss. On the republican side I just have a weird affection for Rudi - I love his effectiveness in Gotham City and his social liberalism (last I checked) and his kind of gothic strange style. But I seriously doubt that he’s electable. Huckabee offends me on too many levels to even count. McCain is really decent but 71 years old and something about him has always struck me as kind of crazy (and not in a good way). I think Romney might just be a super competent president - as good as Bill but not as entertaining because he’ll walk the straight and narrow arround the White House interns. He probably won’t win, though. Just too bland. But his policies - as much as I’ve read of them - seem the most intelligent, and he also seems fairly flexible in his thinking (like Bill). The Mormon angle is really a big problem for many people. Just don’t know if he’s viable. Mostly, though, our family is having a tremendously good time watching the primaries, placing our bets. I don’t remember one this fun in long while.</p>
<p>Mammall, that was an impressively rational and non-provocative post for the cafe :). I am (embarrassed to say) just beginning to pay attention to the races and the politics but the one thing above that I’m not sure is right–I thought Obama actually IS a policy wonk, and that one of the things that people have criticized him for occasionally on the campaign trail is lapsing into those analytical sessions that Bill Clinton was also famous for.</p>
<p>The “Obama” factor can be simply explained: </p>
<p>After 8 years of a President who cannot string two coherent sentences together and a Vice President who mutters out of the side of his mouth, people are thirsting for someone who can deliver a great, inspiring speech (and mean it too).</p>
<p>I find the question of McCains age funny…Ronald Reagan was 70 when he was elected, and he won two terms, is referred to by every republican for what he managed to do during his presidency, so are we saying 1 yr olded is an issue?</p>
<p>I have alot of respect for Rudy, but I can foresee all of the ads from the other side…married 3x, the art issue in NY, Bernie Kierik, losing the christian right (not 1 of them, but they do tend to come out for their man)</p>
<p>Romney is playing the game too much for me, and he scares me because of that.</p>
<p>If Huckabee gets the nod, I am writing Mickey Mouse in…actually I will write in whoever I determined should have gotten the nod.</p>
<p>I think Obama is getting a lot of backing from 1st time voters, here’s my problem they are 18 -25…not married, in college or 1st time job, no true understanding of the global world (outside of facebook or xbox live). They have no understanding of how tax cuts or hikes effect the marketplace. Most likely do not invest in the stock market or own a home and thus, the fed is something they learn about in theory, not reality. SS is too far away for them to even fathom. Illegal immigration is just a blip and typically will not tie the thought that tightening our borders is also about keeping terrorists out (remember they were 11 when 9/11 happened, it didn’t dtrike them to their core like us, unless they had someone affected by it)Probably has never dealt with health ins. (if they are in school M & D are carrying them on their policy). Fear of Iraq and a draft is a large motivator… the other fear is roe v wade, which I cannot see it ever being overturned, so in the end I think fear is the reason they want change…not a reason to elect somebody with no national experience. </p>
<p>I respect the 18-25 age range, (I have one in that demo) however, I feel they are as inexperienced in national issues as Obama. If he wins it will be to that age group, all of the media reports show that he is the leader for this demographic, they maybe the ones that determine our next pres…love my kids, but that is scary to me</p>
<p>It is also fear of other things that will impact the young more…for example, the environment. Seniors also tend to vote on the few issues that impact their lives.</p>
<p>Should we then change the constitution so that only middle aged people can vote?</p>
<p>No, we shouldn’t. I did not mean to imply that, what I meant to imply is that we all our invested for different reasons, and what I am saying is that everyone should vote. I am not about to hand control over to any age/demographic group, b/c we all have different agendas and view points, just as the right wing and left wing…IMHO if you don’t vote you lose the rt to b**ch</p>
<p>Good point on McCain’s age. And I’m guilty of not reading up as much as I probably should on Obama’s policies. I do like his generally positive tone. Nice contrast to Edwards. I don’t know about the youth vote. Sometimes I think they just might accomplish big things that their baby boomer parents did not. Other times I think they’re just incredibly vacuous. Looking forward to Michigan. This is darn fun.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heinlein suggested that only veterans should be allowed to vote. There’s something to be said for that.</p>
<p>Actually super tuesday is going to be thrilling…and then we will go into a lull of two parties throwing mud at each other and causing our nation to become partisan…of course the last time I didn’t belong to CC, so I think the forums will be amazing to watch, and maybe, just maybe those of us who debate within the forum, will be able to have the most informed decision we ever had…hopefully our techno savvy kids will have the debates also on hs life and be able to do the same :^)</p>